GREGORIO F. ORTEGA, TOMAS O. DEL CASTILLO, JR., and BENJAMIN T. BACORRO, petitioners, vs. HON.

. COURT OF APPEALS, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and JOAQUIN L. MISA, respondents. G.R. No. 109248, July 3, 1995
Facts: The law firm of ROSS, LAWRENCE, SELPH and CARRASCOSO was duly registered with the SEC on 4 August 1948. There were several subsequent amendments to the articles of partnership to change the firm name, the last being on 7 June 1977 to BITO, MISA & LOZADA. [Joaquin L. Misa] appellees Jesus B. Bito and Mariano M. Lozada associated themselves together, as senior partners with petitioners Gregorio F. Ortega, Tomas O. del Castillo, Jr., and Benjamin Bacorro, as junior partners. On February 17, 1988, petitioner-appellant wrote the respondents-appellees a letter stating that he is withdrawing and retiring from the firm. Petitioner filed with this Commission's Securities Investigation and Clearing Department (SICD) a petition for dissolution and liquidation of partnership. The hearing officer rendered a decision ruling that petitioner's withdrawal from the law firm did not dissolve the said partnership. On appeal, the SEC en banc reversed the decision of the Hearing Officer and held that the withdrawal of Attorney Joaquin L. Misa had dissolved the partnership of "Bito, Misa & Lozada." The Commission ruled that, being a partnership at will, the law firm could be dissolved by any partner at anytime, such as by his withdrawal therefrom, regardless of good faith or bad faith, since no partner can be forced to continue in the partnership against his will. The Court of Appeals, AFFIRMED in toto the SEC decision and order appealed from. Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals has erred in holding that the partnership of Bito, Misa & Lozada (now Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo) is a partnership at will. Held: NO. A partnership that does not fix its term is a partnership at will. The birth and life of a partnership at will is predicated on the mutual desire and consent of the partners. The right to choose with whom a person wishes to associate himself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. Verily, any one of the partners may, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of the partnership at will. He must, however, act in good faith, not that the attendance of bad faith can prevent the dissolution of the partnership but that it can result in a liability for damages. Among partners, mutual agency arises and the doctrine of delectus personae allows them to have the power, although not necessarily the right, to dissolve the partnership. Upon its dissolution, the partnership continues and its legal personality is retained until the complete winding up of its business culminating in its termination. Additional: The hearing officer however opined that the partnership is one for a specific undertaking and hence not a partnership at will. The "purpose" of the partnership is not the specific undertaking referred to in the law. Otherwise, all partnerships, which necessarily must have a purpose, would all be considered as partnerships for a definite undertaking. There would therefore be no need to provide for articles on partnership at will as none would so exist. Apparently what the law contemplates is a specific undertaking or "project" which has a definite or definable period of completion.